This marks the end of theory in respect of this opening as shown in the chessgames.com database. The only other game in the database to reach this point was Portisch vs G Kluger, 1962 which continued with <13…Qc7>, with White winning in 54 moves.

Displays an evaluation shift of 0.67, and notwithstanding the problems it presented Anand (who commented somewhat laconically that <19.Rxd4 is also very complicated.> - it is generally thought that Anand had prepared for <19. Rxd4>) over the board, it represents a <dubious move>.

Anand found this to be a fatal mistake: <Unfortunately for White, his [previous] move allows this possibility. He would have been [better] off ignoring it by playing 29.Rd1! Bf5!? An amazing move. White is ok, but would you be able to calmly play Qf1 or h3, as he is practically in a state of zugzwang, a [primary] point being 30.Qe3? Rg1+ 31.Bf1 Qa6!>

<29…Rg1+> ( 1.79)

<30. Kd2> ( 1.79) <30…Qd4+> ( 1.84)

<31. Kc2> ( 1.84) <31…Bg4> ( 0.95)

<Engine preference>: <31…Bf5+> ( 1.84). The move <31…Bg4> is a blunder as it (temporarily) concedes the win, although the nominal evaluation shift is only 0.89, reducing the game evaluation to below 1.40, from a winning advantage to a moderate advantage.

<Engine preference>: <32.Rd3> ( 0.95). The move played (<32. f3>) conceded only 0.95 centipawns but constitutes a blunder as it was the losing move, shifting the position evaluation to over 1.40 in Black’s favor.

Anand also gave this move a <?>, commenting that <Returning the favour. 32.Rd3! was a golden opportunity, as black has nothing more than: 32...Bf5 33.Kb3 Bxd3 34.Qxd3 Qxf2 35.Qd8! securing a perpetual.>

The evaluation shift is unquantifiable as the forced mate replaces the numerical evaluation. Although the move actually played is a blunder in the traditional sense as it would have terminated the game almost immediately, it is not considered to be a blunder for the purposes of the method employed for this project as Black’s position was already lost, and remained so for the rest of the game. Accordingly, no weight is attached.

<33…Bh3> (-4.02 )

<Engine preference><33…Bxd3+> (#21). The evaluation shift due to White’s move is also unquantifiable as it concedes a forced mate. However as it does not concede White’s forced win, it is not considered a mistake for the purposes of this project and as such there is no weighting attached to <33…Bh3>.

<Note> The fluctuations generated in the relatively low (16 minimum) ply forward slide were smoothed out as far as possible in the return slide. The corrected evaluations extracted from the return slide are used in this analysis, as they are considered more reliable than the raw evaluations generated on the initial forward slide. All moves have been evaluated on forward and return slide for completeness.

<Evaluation range>:

Between <-#21> (equal to infinity) applying to <33.Bd3> - representing a forced mate for Black - and < 0.76> in respect of the move group <<15…Bd6 16. Rd1 Rg8 17. g3 Rg4> representing a significant/moderate advantage for White.

<The largest evaluation shifts>:

- for White was #21 between <32…Bf5+> ( 1.90) and <33. Bd3>

- for Black was from -#21 between <33. Bd3> and <33…Bh3> ( 4.02)

<Computer statistics>:

• 93.9% of the ply in this game (77/82) coincided with engine preferences 1, 2 or 3

• 86.6% of the ply in the game (71/82) coincided with engine preferences 1 or 2

• 58.5% of the ply in the game (48/82) coincided with the engine’s first preference

• 53.7% of Kramnik’s moves (22/41) coincided with the engine’s first preference

• 63.4% (26/41) of Anand’s moves coincided with the engines first preference.

<The engine evaluation of the final position>:

is <-21.83 > consequent upon a 22 ply analysis. Note that an evaluation value of this magnitude is necessarily transitional as this is a mating attack. The true and ultimate value is of course infinity.

DrGridlock: <visayanbraindoctor> gives a lengthy (9 part) computer analysis of this game. While daunting in its length, it misses some critical points. The methodology is to use 16-ply and 20-ply computer analyses for insights into this game. However, with a game this complex, accurate analysis needs much deeper analyses than this. One example is a critical turning point of this game, White's 18'th move.

At lower depth (20 or so plys), three options: Bf4, b4 and a4 appear to be approximately equal. <visyanbraindoctor> gives these three options evaluations of .69, .76 and .70. Going deeper (to a depth of 26), Komodo gives these three options evaluations of .17, .71 and .24. Kramnik's actual game move of 18 Bf4 is at least a "questionable move" if one analyses it in any depth.

The "project" of <visayanbraindoctor> et al, to produce a large number of shallow computer analyzed games seems to have been abandoned. At least in the case of this game, its abandonment was well deserved.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.